NEVER BETTER OR NEVER MORE: Under siege each winter from sand-eating wind and waves, Goleta Beach Park, pictured above in more balmy times, was once again the subject of a county supervisors-sanctioned plan this week to help fortify the popular park against such destructive advances by Mother Nature.

Article Tools

Nature has had Goleta Beach Park in its sights for as long as anybody can remember. After all, there are just certain inescapable, eroding realities when you build a hugely popular county park wedged between the Pacific Ocean and one of the larger sloughs in the area. But with more than 1.5 million visitors enjoying the park each year, not to mention three major utility lines running beneath its parking lots, there aren’t too many folks in Santa Barbara County interested in letting the ocean and sand reclaim the neighborhood.

With this in mind, and writing the latest chapter in a twisting and turning planning process that is currently 11 years old and counting, Santa Barbara County’s supervisors plotted yet another new course of action this week that they hope — by being decidedly more eco-friendly than previous incarnations — will not just protect the park for the long haul but even work to improve it. “Goleta Beach is something we all treasure,” summed up 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, shortly before the approving votes were cast. “With this plan, we get a larger place for the beach while still maintaining or even enhancing the park itself … Who could possibly be against it?”

Paul Wellman (file)

Goleta Beach during some winter waves in early 2010

Well, for starters, about half of the 20 public commenters on Tuesday afternoon — including County Parks Commissioner Suzanne Perkins and Goleta City Councilmember Michael Bennett — aren’t nearly as enthused as the supes. (It should be noted that the plan was approved 3-0 with Salud Carbajal absent and Joe Centeno abstaining.) Since 1999, county officials and assorted other stakeholders have been working to develop a plan that would best ensure the park’s survival in the face of erosion. Stop-gap measures like rock walls erected on emergency permits (these permits, which were granted by the California Coastal Commission, have since expired) and truckloads of imported sand have helped keep the Pacific at bay, but a long-term solution — one that balanced environmental sensitivities with actual park-saving results — was anything but easy.

Then, in early 2008, a compromise of sorts was brokered. A bit of a gamble, the vision called for putting a series of large pilings in the sand running parallel to the existing pier in hopes of keeping much-needed sand from being swept down coast. It seemed the long-stewing problem had finally found a solution, that is, until the California Coastal Commission voted it down last summer. Sent back to square one, with marching orders from Coastal Commission staff that manmade erosion-fighting structures were going to be hard-pressed to gain approval, County Parks staffers began, in the words of Deputy Director Eric Axelson, “thinking outside of the box” to find a new solution.

Paul Wellman

Dozers work on sand relocation at Goleta Beach Feb. 18, 2010

Officially called “Goleta Beach 2.0,” the plan — which was approved by the county’s Parks Committee in late March — had its first major unveiling at the supervisors’ boardroom this week. Though many details remain unresolved, the basics call for removing the now illegal rock walls at the west end of the parking lot; tearing up more than an acre of asphalt closest to UCSB (roughly 150 of the 604 parking spots in the park) and thus allowing sand to eventually fill in; relocating the three utility pipes in the area (a pressurized waste pipe, a Sempre Energy gas line, and a massive reclaimed-water pipe); developing an off-site parking lot, complete with shuttle service and a water taxi that connects the lot, via the slough to the beach; providing kayak rental concessions; rerouting the bike path; and creating a new walking trail. Even better, the undertaking projects to cost roughly half the price of the permeable pier plan. “We fully believe that Goleta Beach 2.0 will be a net revenue gain for the county,” opined Axelson.

But, to hear critics tell it, the new plan — which smacks of a “managed retreat” option floated during the permeable pier Environmental Impact Review process — doesn’t do nearly enough to actually save the park as it is presently composed. Unconvinced by scientific data that increasingly shows coastal armoring (i.e., sea walls and rock revetment walls) to be a detriment to beach health, and fearful that a complete removal of the rocks at the west end of the park will spell certain death for the park while simultaneously imperiling nearby State Highway 217, several speakers during public comment took the plan to task. “The best protection of our park is the line of defense that already exists. The rocks work. That is why [the park] is still there,” explained Friends of Goleta Beach member Michael Radtree. Suzanne Perkins, who chairs the county’s Parks Commission and was the lone dissenting vote against the plan when they voted on it a few months ago, added, “This plan is like making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear … It simply does not protect.”

In the end, the supes — though all conscious of 2.0’s potential shortcomings and still-forming specifics — voted to approve the tentative plan and move it toward a brand new EIR process and full-blown engineering study. “I don’t know how to get these answers without moving this forward,” summed up the 3rd District’s Doreen Farr. “We can’t just do nothing.”

Interestingly, Janet Wolf pointed out that the plan turned down by the Coastal Commission also called for removal of the unpermitted rocks, and said that most of those against Goleta Beach 2.0 had been in favor of the last plan.

A water taxi in the slough would be terrible for the birds that nest, live, and rest there. To hear it mentioned in the same paragraph with county revenue, and Kayak rentals is really sad. Wildlife has an uphill battle, and our slough is a treasure in Southern California, let's give it a hand and protect what is left. The airport is enough of an obstacle to the estuary and slough.

The park is a great community asset. The sand that goes away in the winter, comes back in the summer. Moving picnic benches further back in the winter is not too hard of a task for the park dept. Dealing with the underground utilities sounds like another smart thing to do as well. Too bad the restaurant isn't in a better location for all of these reasons. It shouldn't be on the beach anyway. Deal with a long term plan on relocation of the restaurant. It could still have a great view further back off of the beach.

Uh, I'm pretty sure they can make a non-petroleum eco friendly water taxi that won't kill the birds and fish...

This is by far the best option I've heard. Clear out the rocks!! They don't protect the beach, they just protect the parking lot and the grass area. Take out the rocks and there WILL be actual beach again. Are people going to the beach to sit on the grass or go to the beach? You can go to any park and sit on the grass.

Electric water taxi! Totally cool. How about people powered gondolas? Pedal powered boats. Etc. Let's be creative and quit grumbling about petty details, although I am well aware that the devil is in the details. If the pro-rocks contingent will work with the Parks Dept. this project will move forward smoothly, the park will be improved, the beach will be protected, the restaurant (lovely view very mediocre food at best by the way) will remain. I'd say kudos to EDC, Surfrider, Eric Axelson of the County parks and his crew and particularly to Supervisor Joni Gray who surprised everyone with her yes vote.

Great. A plan that the County can't afford that leads to eventual loss of the western section of the beach forever. Once again, pathetic Sup. Janet Wolf on the side of the enviros over the residents. Can we start a recall yet?

Ok. Let's think this out. A water taxi requires buying the boat, hiring a licensed charter captain (with benefits), ongoing maintenance on the boat. How is it going to be paid for? Charging people 5 bucks to go 300 ft???? Boat cost $70K minimum, captain ($70K), fuel ???? ongoing maintenance???? Where do you dock it to prevent vandalism??? Why? From what we heard, the area that was going to be parking that was to serve the water taxi is no longer available since the landowners have other plans. $10-13 million for the beach surrender plan. County upside down by 40 million next year. This board majority is the most irresponsible I've seen in my 50 plus years in Goleta.

"more than 1.5 million visitors enjoying the park each year" ... "the 604 parking spots in the park" -- that would require each and every parking space to be taken by an average of 3.6 vehicles per day, 365 days per year, assuming an average of 2 visitors per vehicle.

But, it has lots of open parking spaces most days, nearly empty in winter. Plenty of parking spaces are taken up by one-person vehicles or UCSB students who don't want to pay for on-campus parking.